The East Wing

By now, you've seen the images or read the news clips: the White House's East Wing is being (at least partially) demolished. Why is Donald Trump building a $300 million ballroom? Who will pay for it? Is this level of White House renovation unprecedented or expected? In this episode, Phoenix Ricks discusses the history of White House reconstructions and the efforts to preserve the current design of the White House. Plus: No Kings protests swept the nation last week, and if the U.S. bailout is any indication, the "A" in MAGA stands for Argentina. 

Be sure to follow us on Instagram @thefridaybrief and sign up for The Friday Brief newsletter on thefridaybrief.com.

Chapters

• 0:00 Welcome
• 0:16 What is happening at the White House?
• 5:36 Why is the U.S. bailing out Argentina?
• 8:04 America has No Kings
• 9:54 Until next time!

Transcript

Welcome to The Friday Brief, a news podcast by Girl Friday. I’m Phoenix Ricks, the CEO of Girl Friday and your host. This is your brief for October 22, 2025. 

The White House’s East Wing is currently being destroyed, despite previous administration statements that insisted the ballroom addition would not disturb the historic structure. No one, and I mean, truly no one, asked for the White House to add another ballroom. The White House has undergone numerous necessary renovations and restorations throughout its history. The Truman administration undertook one of the most extensive structural renovations, and then the Kennedy administration famously upgraded the interior. 

Jackie Kennedy's vision and meticulous attention to historical details resulted in the grandeur we see today. Her work was so appreciated that new rules were established to ensure the preservation of that design. According to The White House Historical Association: "In 1961, Congress enacted Public Law 87-286, declaring that the furnishings of the White House were the inalienable property of the White House, legislating the White House’s status as a museum, and extending legal protection to donated period furnishings and all White House objects. In March 1964, to continue the efforts of Jacqueline Kennedy, President Lyndon Johnson issued Executive Order 11145, establishing the Advisory Committee for the Preservation of the White House to guide the maintenance of the museum character of the State Rooms." 

Notably, the association says, "The White House, as a building, was designated a historic site in 1960. As a National Heritage Site [and] National Historic Landmark in the care of the National Park Service, extensive regulations would govern attempts to institute any significant changes." And for decades, First Families adhered to those norms by making improvements as needed, but always within the scope of the shared vision for the White House. 

However, today, CNN reported that when discussing the ballroom addition, Donald Trump stated, “In order to do it properly, we had to take down the existing structure.” He added, “It was never thought of as being much. It was a very small building.” 

Thanks to growing up in DC and working here, I’ve had the privilege of visiting the White House several times, both for work and for fun, throughout my life. No matter how many times I visit the White House, each time feels awe-inspiring. It is an incredible rush to enter a space filled with so many political memories and historic moments. 

The East Wing, in particular, is a monument to the evolution of the Office of the First Lady and what that represents for the United States and the world. Demolishing any portion of it, particularly without the buy-in from our country’s top historic preservation organizations, is deeply concerning. His comment about the size of the White House might surprise people. I can tell you that many of the offices within the White House are actually quite small, and the West Wing’s corridors are a bit narrower than they appear on TV, particularly in fictional shows. So, it isn’t shocking that most White House staffers work in the Old Executive Office Building, another gorgeous, historic building nearby that I hope this administration leaves intact. 

However, the entertaining spaces within the White House are appropriately sized for grand occasions. The administration and First Family also use the expansive South Lawn for even larger events. There is absolutely no logical reason to demolish any portion of the White House to create a new ballroom. If this administration’s gaudy gold modifications to the Oval Office are any indication, this ballroom may become a tawdry fast-fashion copy of a Winter Palace ballroom during the height of Imperial Russia. 

I find the persistent question of who is paying for the ballroom a bit ridiculous at this point, because we have no reason to believe the narrative that tax dollars will not be involved. First, we were told the East Wing would be untouched. We were then informed that the ballroom addition would cost approximately $200 million. Now we’re being told the cost is likely higher. CBS reported today that the cost will be $300 million, and Donald Trump says private donors have pledged funds. If you’ve ever worked or volunteered in fundraising, you know that pledged funds and pledge fulfillments are not the same thing. 

You may recall billionaires racing to pledge funds to restore Notre Dame in France after the catastrophic fire. They were delighted about the positive media coverage, which highlighted their perceived commitments to conservation and history. And then, when the fires died down, so did their promises. Months went by before even a tiny portion of just one of those pledges was realized, and that was only after media pressure and public shaming. Even if not a single U.S. tax dollar is spent to build that odious ballroom, we will certainly be paying for the maintenance and upkeep of a superfluous government structure. 

On top of reckless spending on architecture and design, MSNBC reported yesterday, “Trump’s Argentina bailout once again puts Americans last.” You may recall that Donald Trump famously ran on a “Make America Great Again” platform. In his inaugural address, he said he would “put America first.” But now, his administration is cutting Medicaid, and the Republican party is leading a government shutdown, which has forced U.S. government workers into long foodbank lines in the Washington, DC area. Given these chaotic changes, Democrats and Republicans alike seem to be very confused by the $20 billion bailout for Argentina. This is particularly disturbing in rural America, where American farmers, many of whom are Republicans, have been suffering the consequences of MAGA policies, like getting rid of USAID and cutting USDA funding. MSNBC says “small-farm bankruptcies here have climbed to a five-year high.” 

And so, why are we helping Argentina? By now, you know, I truly believe in humanitarian aid and development, but that isn’t what’s happening here. When asked about the reason for this bailout, Donald Trump said, “Just helping a great philosophy take over a great country.” Argentina has been inching further to the far right for years now, and that isn’t shocking when you look at the country’s history. Their current president, Javier Milei, is a far-right populist and an ally of Donald Trump. While his political ideology may be similar, as Trump’s statement about philosophy suggests, what’s fascinating is that the biggest critics of this bailout decision will likely be Trump’s America First supporters. They do not seem to have a vested interest in spreading their agenda abroad if it also involves their tax dollars going abroad. Especially when there are other options for Argentina. 

The Council on Foreign Relations wrote that this is “(...) essentially an emergency credit line that constitutes the first large-scale rescue financed directly by the United States since the Bill Clinton administration provided Mexico with a $20 billion loan in 1995. Lending through the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has been much more common, as it poses far fewer risks to the United States.” 

Given the state of the union, it is unsurprising that Americans are disgruntled. NPR reported that last weekend, approximately 2,600 No Kings protests were planned across the United States. People in blue, purple, and even deep-red states gathered to voice their concerns about the country's direction and the administration’s federal funding cuts for essential social services. 

In response, as The Guardian reported, Donald Trump shared an AI-generated video that shows him wearing a crown while flying a fighter plane with the words “King Trump” on the side. In the video, his AI avatar dumps some kind of disgusting brown sludge, perhaps pollution or feces, onto Americans who appear to be attending No Kings protests or similar demonstrations. The AI-generated video used Kenny Loggins’ song "Danger Zone," which you probably know from the movie Top Gun. Loggins issued a statement clarifying that he did not authorize the use of his music. 

I doubt this will be the last time a musician has to issue a statement about a White House-generated AI video, as this kind of erratic and polarizing content is becoming increasingly popular with this administration. I know, from my work, how other nations analyze government content and study our political leaders. If we do not change course rapidly, history may recall this era as the swift decline of steady American leadership. To other nations, we appear to be crumbling, like the walls of the East Wing. 

Thank you for listening to The Friday Brief. Make sure you and your friends don’t miss an episode! Check out thefridaybrief.com, and follow The Friday Brief on Instagram. Until next time, I’m Phoenix Ricks, signing off from Washington, DC. Let’s work together for a world of good.